Translate blog

Tuesday, July 14, 2015

Mosby’s Police family: Mom Failed Drug Test, father fired for robbing drug dealers, uncle fired after testing positive for cocaine.

The mother of Baltimore city state’s attorney Marilyn Mosby faced numerous disciplinary actions during her 20-year career as a Boston police officer, though the public wouldn’t know it based on the Freddie Gray case prosecutor’s public statements touting her family’s strong policing history.

The 35-year-old Mosby has used her family’s police ties to rebut critics who say she rushed to judgement and overcharged the six cops involved in Gray’s April 12 arrest. The 25-year-old Gray died a week later, touching off rioting in Baltimore and nationwide protests.

“Law enforcement is pretty much instilled within my being,” Mosby told MSNBC’s Chris Hayes on May 1, the day she publicly announced charges against the officers. “I come from five generations of police officers,” she added, pointing out that her mother, father, grandfather and uncles have all served as cops.

But there’s more to the story than Mosby has let on.

Personnel records obtained by The Daily Caller show that Mosby’s mother, Linda Thompson, first violated the Boston police department’s substance abuse policy in 2006. After serving a 45-day rehab stint, Thompson violated the drug code again and voluntarily resigned on Feb. 1, 2008, rather than be fired.

The early retirement allowed Thompson, now 52, to draw a $1,810.69 monthly pension.

Thompson is not the only member of Mosby’s family to have had a rocky policing career. Mosby’s father was fired from the Boston police department in 1991 following accusations that he and his partner robbed drug dealers at gun point. Mosby’s uncle was fired from Boston PD in 2001 after testing positive for cocaine. Her grandfather was a well-respected Boston cop, but he ultimately and unsuccessfully sued the department for racial discrimination in the 1980s.

Mosby’s public comments reminded one retired Boston detective of something her mom did in the 18th district police house on Oct. 3, 1995.

That was the day a California jury found O.J. Simpson not guilty of murdering his ex-wife, Nicole Simpson, and her friend Ronald Goldman.

The detective, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, told TheDC that when the bombshell decision was announced, an ecstatic Linda Thompson jumped up on the desk of another officer and began “doing a victory dance.”

The retired detective said he was bothered by the display but felt he couldn’t do anything about it. Thompson did not respond to a phone message and several emails sent over the past three weeks seeking comment about the incident.

Thompson’s former colleague gave other insight into her work in the 18th district, which encompasses Boston’s Hyde Park.

“This is a woman we carried because half of the time she was on drugs, she was high,” the former cop told TheDC in a phone interview.

“Everybody knew it, but nobody wanted to say anything,” he added. “She did nothing. All she did was put in the hours.”  (Full Story)

Planned Parenthood Uses Partial-Birth Abortions to Sell Baby Parts





New undercover footage shows Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s top doctor describing how the clinics sell the body parts of aborted babies, in some cases using an illegal partial-birth abortion procedure.

“I’d say a lot of people want liver,” Dr. Deborah Nucatola, PPFA Senior Director of Medical Services, tells actors posing as buyers from a human biologics company in the video. “And for that reason, most providers will do this case under ultrasound guidance, so they’ll know where they’re putting their forceps.” (RELATED: Nearly 1 In 3 Abortions Happen At Planned Parenthood ‘Health Clinics’)
The footage was obtained by the Center for Medical Progress as part of a 3-year investigative effort.
 

Saturday, July 11, 2015

The left speaks out against Obamacare

Slate:  ...The bill for the health care expansion is coming due, just as the recipients will be heading to the ballot box to vote in the first primaries for the 2016 election. More than a few are likely to be annoyed. 

Last week Oregon’s insurance commissioner, Laura Cali, announced that the state had approved a 25 percent premium increase for the largest health insurer on the state’s exchanges. The second largest insurer did even better: It received permission to boost its monthly charge to consumers by 33 percent.

Oregon might be the first health insurance exchange equivalent of a penguin getting shoved off an ice floe, but it won’t be alone in the freezing-cold waters for long. For example, BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee requested an average 36 percent price increase for the plans it offers—after receiving a 19 percent bump last year. And that sounds like a relative bargain compared with Minnesota and New Mexico, where the BlueCross BlueShield family is looking for increases of more than 50 percent. Even if the final numbers are lower than the asks, it seems quite likely these states will approve substantive premium increases.

The problem is simple. As Trudy Lieberman reported this month in Harper’s, the ACA made a decent stab at solving the problem of Americans lacking insurance. Unfortunately, the bargain struck to get the bill to a point where lobbyists for the hospital, insurance, and pharmaceutical industries to sign on, or at least not fight it, did not adequately address the issue of overall medical costs.
And that’s where the consumer comes in. Someone is “it,” the party paying the bill. And that “it” is increasingly you, whether you receive insurance on the exchanges or from an employer.

more:

True, more than 80 percent of those purchasing insurance on the exchanges are eligible for subsidies for their premiums. But that’s not a solution, in either the short-term or the long-term. First, there are still deductibles, and although subsidies covering parts of the deductible and other approved costs are available to those meeting certain income limits who sign up for particular plans on the exchanges, it’s a complicated, difficult-to-understand process.* Second, subsidies don’t mean freebie. The taxpayer pays the money to the insurance industry, leaving less funding for other priorities. Third, of course, it leaves the people who are not eligible for subsidies feeling like chumps, stuck paying the bill for a health insurance expansion that, no matter how necessary, many of them don’t see as offering them enough in return for their own personal increased costs. It’s highly unlikely they will give the reforms a pass simply because premiums were also increasing before the ACA became law. Obamacare, after all, was supposed to put a stop to this sort of thing.

In sum, it’s a problem so pressing that even Ezekiel Emanuel, one of the major players behind Obama’s health care reforms, took to the Wall Street Journal this week to declare, “If Mr. Obama doesn’t act soon to control costs, escalating costs may ultimately threaten the sustainability of his coverage expansion.”
In the meantime, you shouldn’t need a political consultant to tell you why consumers paying hundreds of dollars—or even more than $1,000 a month—for health insurance they are required to buy and often can’t afford to use might well get angry. Once you name something the Affordable Care Act, people oddly expect the product on offer to be affordable. Who’d have thunk it?

(Full story)